[CCG] Re: CCG Quorum and Voting

[Greg Shatan <[e-mail]>]

All,

Sorry not to speak up earlier.

First, thank you to Russ for getting the ball rolling.

Second, I agree with Christopher that we should consider and  adopt a set
of rules, rather than one rule in isolation (e.g., voting). I am
sympathetic, however, to Russ’s desire to deal with the the thing that got
messy before.

Third, on voting:

1. Full consensus should be our primary method of decision-making. In other
words, each community should reach a consensus position and that all 3
groups need to come to a unitary consensus.

2. If we can’t reach consensus, we can move to a vote.  I think a yes vote
needs to require at least two yes votes from each community. The fact that
one community can “block” a decision is a feature, not a bug. Two groups
should not be able to steamroller the third.

We also need a process for taking votes, including sufficient notice
requirements , voting periods, when votes can be taken other than during a
meeting, etc.

We also need to make a list of other potential rule topics.  These rules
should be lightweight, but full featured information enough to avoid large
gaps.

Finally. does anyone have a precedents for our rules?I know we are an odd
duck, but there should be some documents we can use for background band
basis.

I am happy to help!

Thanks!

Greg




On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 09:03 Maarten Simon <maarten.simon=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Russ,
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion.
>
> Please note that I am since its conception the ccNSO appointed member of
> the CWG. At that same time Christopher was appointed by ALAC and Greg by
> the GNSO (and as the chair for the Names).
>
> Greg later caused some confusion as he over the years 'changed sides'
> being more active in ALAC than in the GNSO. When all the discussions
> started he mixed that up and thought he was the ALAC rep in the Names part
> of the CWG and approached the GNSO who appointed Mike but not with the
> intention to replace Greg but to fill the gap that actually did not exist.
>
> So the current Names members are Christopher and myself and either Greg or
> Mike. I'll leave it up to them to clarify this.
>
> Best,
>
> Maarten
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
> Verzonden: woensdag 3 juni 2026 23:08
> Aan: Christopher Wilkinson <[e-mail]>
> CC: [e-mail]
> Onderwerp: [CCG] Re: CCG Quorum and Voting
> Urgentie: Hoog
>
> Christopher:
>
> I agree that we need 100% consensus to adopt rules related to quorum and
> voting.  My intent by starting this thread was to get a discussion going
> while there is no pending decision.  Section 2.4 of the community agreement
> tells us that we need to establish CCG Operational Procedures. Obviously we
> are tardy in that action. The CCG operational rules and procedures, need to
> include requirements relating to voting, quorum, calling of meetings,
> actions taken by the CCG co-chairs (individually or collectively), action
> taken outside of meetings and the like. In addition, the need to say how to
> revise the rules and procedures that we adopt. I think we should decide
> whether we want someone from the IPMC to be a liaison/non-voting ex officio
> member to the CCG. Anyone can read our mail list from the archive, but we
> many want such a person to be on the mail list and invited to all CCG
> meetings.
>
> I was starting with the parts that seemed to cause trouble when dealing
> with our last decision.  I figured that sorting the most contentious parts
> first was a reasonable first step.
>
> Item 4 on your list is not correct.  The community agreement says:
>
> > Names Community: The listed chartering organizations of the Cross
> > Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition
> > Proposal on Naming Related Functions
> > (“CWG”) – namely, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization
> > (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the
> > Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory
> > Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) –
> > that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be
> included as participants in the Names Community.
>
> I do not see "ccNSO" anywhere outside the definition of the Names
> Community in the community agreement.
>
> According to the community agreement, the Names community appoints three
> people as CCG members. More than three ICANN organizations are listed in
> this Names Community definition, so these organizations do not each pick a
> CCG member. If the process is written down how those appointments take
> place, I am not aware of it. If it is written down, please point me to it.
>
> Regarding your PS:  The community agreement say that there are three
> co-chairs, one from each operational community.  The current co-chairs are
> listed in my first message on this thread. If either Hans Petter or Greg
> would prefer to lead this discussion, I will gladly pass the baton.
> Further, the CCG is supposed to be a lightweight activity, and whatever
> rules and procedures that we put in place should not require a secretariat.
>
> Russ
>
> > On Jun 3, 2026, at 4:25 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Good evening:
> >
> > Why are we being asked about this now? What happened? Since you ask,
> allow me to add my few tuppences worth.
> >
> > 1.    The Community Agreement provision is for CCG Procedures is general.
> >       We need general rules of procedure.
> >
> >       Whatever the merits or otherwise of any particular voting
> procedures, they should only be PART of the overall rules of procedure..
> >
> >       These are currently lacking, and have been so for a considerably
> long time.
> >
> > 2.    In my view, voting, when necessary, should be done Simultaneously,
> in a meeting, face to face or on-line.
> >       Discussion of the quorum, proxies etc. could be safely deferred
> until the Rules of Procedure have been adopted, by unanimity.
> >
> >       In any event, I would not agree to maintaining recent practice
> whereby IETF attempts to take votes piecemeal, directly, from each CCG
> member, without calling a meeting.
> >
> > 3.    First, I would ask IETF to send to CCG, for information, the Rules
> of Procedure applicable to IPMC, and any other pre-existing relevant
> documents currently used in any other part of IETF.
> >
> > 4.    I recall that ccNSO is a CCG member.
> >
> > Regards to you all
> >
> > Christopher Wilkinson.
> >
> > PS:  IETF cannot unilaterally arrogate the Chair of CCG. That is subject
> to the rules of procedure.
> >       IETF should not accumulate the roles of a pre-determined Protocol
> Community and that of the CCG Secretariat.
> >
> >> On 2 Jun 2026, at 22:10, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to return to this topic while there are no pending
> decisions.
> >>
> >> The current CCG members are:
> >>
> >> Names: Greg Shatan (chair), Mike Rodenbaugh, Christopher Wilkinson
> >> Numbers: Hans Petter Holen (chair), John Curran, Germán Valdez
> >> Protocols: Russ Housley (chair), Barry Leiba, Tim Wicinski
> >>
> >> The Community Agreement leaves it up to the CCG to set its own
> procedures.
> >>
> >>> https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016
> >>> -09-30-Executed.pdf
> >>>
> >>> 2.4 CCG Operational Procedures. The CCG shall adopt, by consensus,
> >>> its own operational rules and procedures, including requirements
> >>> relating to voting, quorum, calling of meetings, actions taken by
> >>> the CCG co-chairs (individually or collectively), action taken outside
> of meetings and the like, at its first meeting, and shall thereafter revise
> such rules and procedures as permitted thereby.
> >>> Such procedures shall not constitute a part of this Agreement, and
> >>> compliance with such procedures shall be beyond the scope of this
> >>> Agreement. The CCG may invite representatives of the IETF Trust to
> >>> attend its meetings, but such attendance is not required, or the CCG
> may request the IETF Trust to appoint a liaison/non-voting ex officio
> member to the CCG.
> >>
> >> I propose a simple rule for quorum:
> >>
> >> - At least two members from each community are present.
> >>
> >> This approach forces the Names, Numbers, and Protocols communities to
> promptly fill any open positions.  If any one of the communities has two
> openings, then the CCG cannot make any decisions.  Is this a good thing or
> do we need to add more words to deal with that number of open CCG seats?
> >>
> >> I propose a two-part voting procedure:
> >>
> >> - Majority of the CCG members that are present; and
> >> - At least one CCG member from each community casts an affirmative vote.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have concerns about these proposals?  If so, please share
> your concerns and suggestions for improvement.
> >>
> >> Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCG mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> CCG mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>